Moral Parasites

[Ouroboros]

Supposedly, they did.

I'll take your word for it.

 

Btw, just to ensure my earlier claims that Aquinas were influenced by the Greek philosophies, I looked it up, and I'm right. St. Aquinas for instance made a list of 7 virtues, four of them based on Aristotle's virtues(justice, courage, temperance and prudence), and 3 additional from Paul (faith, hope, charity). And Wiki got this to say about Aquinas Theology: "Aquinas blended Greek philosophy and Christian doctrine by suggesting that rational thinking and the study of nature, like revelation, were valid ways to understand God. According to Aquinas, God reveals himself through nature, so to study nature is to study God." So think about this, if I believer or unbeliever, study nature and will understand what we are supposed to understand about life, morality, and eternity, then why should any religious person argue against nature as the source of understanding these things? The idea is that God planted the things in nature, so being a naturalist is no different than being religious, since the same "facts" would be presented in the same nature. Atheist or Theist, would have to reach the same concepts through the same study.

[mwc]

My question is about if Jesus read the scriptures (Torah, prophets, poets, etc) in Greek, Hebrew, or Arameic? Our discussion is currently a bit about how much (or little) Jesus could have been influenced by Greek thought and philosophy. It's obvious that the Jews living outside Israel were, looking at Philo and others, but Israel was also influenced a few hundred years before Jesus, and the question is if Jerusalem, and the teachings, and the culture, could have been to some degree Hellenized already, and Jesus thoughts (like the Golden Rule) might have been borrowed (even unconsciously) from the Greeks.

There are hard questions to answer.

 

Most religious texts were in Hebrew. So in Israel I would bet Hebrew first, Aramaic second and Greek last. Walk into any synagogue and you should find Hebrew. But if you're talking about what was spoken you'd hear Aramaic. I'm not Catholic but I imagine it was like Catholicism was not so long ago when they used Latin. Walk around outside and hear English (or the native language). Walk inside and it's Latin. But from what I understand not all Latin. Only parts were in Latin so a mix. From what I gather they actually read the scrolls in Hebrew but could have also said them in Aramaic as well. The Catholic thing is the best I can think to compare it to off the top of my head though. Even in diaspora I'd expect to have Hebrew as the dominant language (especially written) in the synagogues.

 

The Hellenistic influence was everywhere. The Maccabees rebelled against it but the Hasmonean dynasty seemed rather Hellenized in their own right. Herod enjoyed all things Rome and brought that culture right into Judea. Many of his cities (many) were very Roman complete with temples to the Greco-Roman gods. The Gentiles were there essentially living side-by-side with the Jews. There were a few exceptions like Jerusalem which was a fairly Jewish stronghold (though as I recall it got a little theater and some other things it shouldn't have technically had). The Jews in Galilee, since they were converted as sword point, never fully "converted" and always had a little "pagan" streak going. There are examples from different periods of them worshiping along side pagans in the temples and synagogues.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

The Jews in Galilee, since they were converted as sword point, never fully "converted" and always had a little "pagan" streak going. There are examples from different periods of them worshiping along side pagans in the temples and synagogues.

Lets clarify what you're saying about Galilee, they were "converted" by the Romans?

[mwc]

The Jews in Galilee, since they were converted as sword point, never fully "converted" and always had a little "pagan" streak going. There are examples from different periods of them worshiping along side pagans in the temples and synagogues.

Lets clarify what you're saying about Galilee, they were "converted" by the Romans?

They were converted by John Hyrcanus, son of Simon (brother of Judas Maccabee), in 2C BCE. He was about the only person to ever spread Judaism this way. You could convert, die or move away. He had quite a few converts. He wanted the "ancestral" land back. Many of the "converts" never entirely gave up the old ways of doing things (as is usually the case).

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

They were converted by John Hyrcanus, son of Simon (brother of Judas Maccabee), in 2C BCE. He was about the only person to ever spread Judaism this way. You could convert, die or move away. He had quite a few converts. He wanted the "ancestral" land back. Many of the "converts" never entirely gave up the old ways of doing things (as is usually the case).

Ah, so they were pagan, but forced into Judaism. Which means it's possible they had a bunch of heretics ideas still floating around.

[freeday]

most religious people would admit that morals can be deduced without the bible.

I sure hope so, but it rarely looks that way from the conversations we have on this board. Even though I think both you, Yoyo, and End3 are fairly decent people, and in meat-life we'd probably have no problems sitting at the bar heaving some good beers.

 

unfortunately I gave up drinking a while back, it seems I have an addictive personality. We could always go hang out at the public library and research ethics.

[freeday]

My question is about if Jesus read the scriptures (Torah, prophets, poets, etc) in Greek, Hebrew, or Arameic? Our discussion is currently a bit about how much (or little) Jesus could have been influenced by Greek thought and philosophy. It's obvious that the Jews living outside Israel were, looking at Philo and others, but Israel was also influenced a few hundred years before Jesus, and the question is if Jerusalem, and the teachings, and the culture, could have been to some degree Hellenized already, and Jesus thoughts (like the Golden Rule) might have been borrowed (even unconsciously) from the Greeks.

There are hard questions to answer.

 

Most religious texts were in Hebrew. So in Israel I would bet Hebrew first, Aramaic second and Greek last. Walk into any synagogue and you should find Hebrew. But if you're talking about what was spoken you'd hear Aramaic. I'm not Catholic but I imagine it was like Catholicism was not so long ago when they used Latin. Walk around outside and hear English (or the native language). Walk inside and it's Latin. But from what I understand not all Latin. Only parts were in Latin so a mix. From what I gather they actually read the scrolls in Hebrew but could have also said them in Aramaic as well. The Catholic thing is the best I can think to compare it to off the top of my head though. Even in diaspora I'd expect to have Hebrew as the dominant language (especially written) in the synagogues.

 

The Hellenistic influence was everywhere. The Maccabees rebelled against it but the Hasmonean dynasty seemed rather Hellenized in their own right. Herod enjoyed all things Rome and brought that culture right into Judea. Many of his cities (many) were very Roman complete with temples to the Greco-Roman gods. The Gentiles were there essentially living side-by-side with the Jews. There were a few exceptions like Jerusalem which was a fairly Jewish stronghold (though as I recall it got a little theater and some other things it shouldn't have technically had). The Jews in Galilee, since they were converted as sword point, never fully "converted" and always had a little "pagan" streak going. There are examples from different periods of them worshiping along side pagans in the temples and synagogues.

 

mwc

 

Just a fun fact. You are correct that there was a huge Hellenistic influence, but I would postulate that it was the dominance. That there were more Greek than Jewish persons in the region. The reasoning behind this is that in the south side of Jerusalem, which would have been the most heavily populated Jewish area, more than half of the tomb inscriptions are in Greek, not Hebrew.

 

Speaking of Thomas Aquinas, he is most notably known for his first cause argument; which I know you guys love to hear about around hear. Along with Aristotle, he deduced that it was logically possible for the world to have always existed; but he believed the universe did have a beginning based on his faith in the bible, not through philosophy.

[Looking4Answers]

Some of the mistakes in the Gospels (if I recall correctly, MWC you can get me straight) were made based on mistranslations of the Torah to Greek. Like the "virgin" thing for instance. Which shows that the writers were familiar with the Greek translation of the Torah, and not Arameic or Hebrew. I also think (but this one I'm very unsure of) that during the time of Jesus himself, the Torah was used in Greek and not Hebrew. MWC, do you know anything about this part and can fill in on the different aspects?

 

OK! I think I can help with this one a bit, Hans .

 

I believe you are referring to the Isaiah 7:14 passage:

 

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

 

The Hebrew word for "virgin" used in the Old Testament is "almah" which simply means "young woman" or "maiden." While "almah" could refer to a virgin, it does not have to at all. The Hebrew Old Testament has a clear word that does mean "virgin" and it is "betulah." If the author of Isaiah wanted to ensure that everyone knew he was speaking of a "virgin" he could have used the more exact word, "betulah" and not the more fluid word, "almah."

 

When the Old Testament was finally translated in the Greek (called the Septuagint) the translators chose to use a form of the Greek word "parthenos." This is the Greek word for "virgin." So the translators of the LXX (70 or Septuagint) decided to go against the very well understood original Hebrew word's meaning (almah = young woman or maiden) and translate it as if the original said "betulah" (virgin).

 

It is possible that the translators of the LXX chose this stronger, more precise Greek word (parthenos) to reflect the very popular Hellenistic belief in virgin born deities and demi-gods of their time. While I am not standing on this last statement as fact, it is something to further research and consider.

 

It then becomes pretty apparent that the New Testament writer of Matthew used the Greek understanding for attributing the Isaiah "prophecy" to Jesus. It seems that prior to the Matthew account the idea of a virgin birth was not necessarily attributed to Jesus. However, it may be possible because of the many other "virgin born deities and demi-gods" that the author of Matthew thought making Jesus "virgin born" would lend some credibility to the credentials of Jesus. I know I have sort of laid this on the author of Matthew's shoulders and that may not be the case. It could be that, by the time Matthew was being written, the concept of the "virgin born savior" was already circulating. The point is that many belief systems before, during and after had a virgin born savior, god or demi-god and it seems that Jesus was added into the mix.

[Ouroboros]

Speaking of Thomas Aquinas, he is most notably known for his first cause argument; which I know you guys love to hear about around hear. Along with Aristotle, he deduced that it was logically possible for the world to have always existed; but he believed the universe did have a beginning based on his faith in the bible, not through philosophy.

And he really stole the first cause idea from Aristotle, and the "Unmovable Mover". Also the Kalam school of Islam was hundreds of years before Aquinas, and we know about the Kalam from the famous "Kalam Argument." It's interesting to see that the "First Cause" argument both proves the Aristotle's God, and Allah, besides the Trinity of Christianity. Maybe I can steal it to prove FSM?

[Snafutopia]

It then becomes pretty apparent that the New Testament writer of Matthew used the Greek understanding for attributing the Isaiah "prophecy" to Jesus.

 

 

Interesting bit about that, from Russell Shorto's "Gospel Truth":

 

Aside from translation error of the word "almah," a second major problem scholars have with the virgin birth is quite obvious:

 

The passage from the Matthew gospel leads one to believe that Isaiah was talking about he coming of a great leader, a Messiah, who would guide the chosen people to heaven, or at least to a better place.

 

In fact, Isaiah is talking about nothing of the kind. In the passage, King Ahaz of Judah is facing attack from two enemies. The prophet Isaiah declares that the attackers will be vanquished and their own lands deserted. When will this occur? Isaiah points to a certain woman -- an almah -- and says that "before her child is old enough to know right from wrong" Ahaz's enemies' kingdoms will be laid waste.

 

As Paula Fredricksen says, "Isaiah 7:14 is not a messianic prophecy. In its original context, it represents God through the prophet assuring King Ahaz that evil days are fast approaching for his enemies."

 

So then, the writer of the Matthew gospel took a sentence that said in effect, "Before that young woman's child is very old, your enemies will be done for," and made it seem to mean "A virgin shall give birth and this child will become the Messiah.

 

Clearly, the writer of the Matthew gospel was wrong in thinking that Isaiah was referring to a virgin, and he was bending scriptural interpretation to the breaking point in trying to relate the Ahaz situation to Jesus's birth.

[Looking4Answers]

Interesting bit about that, from Russell Shorto's "Gospel Truth":

 

Exactly. In my Scrutinizing Scripture blog (which I have not had time to update in months! ... see my signature) I cover this in detail.

[Ouroboros]

The Hebrew word for "virgin" used in the Old Testament is "almah" which simply means "young woman" or "maiden." While "almah" could refer to a virgin, it does not have to at all. The Hebrew Old Testament has a clear word that does mean "virgin" and it is "betulah." If the author of Isaiah wanted to ensure that everyone knew he was speaking of a "virgin" he could have used the more exact word, "betulah" and not the more fluid word, "almah."

 

When the Old Testament was finally translated in the Greek (called the Septuagint) the translators chose to use a form of the Greek word "parthenos." This is the Greek word for "virgin." So the translators of the LXX (70 or Septuagint) decided to go against the very well understood original Hebrew word's meaning (almah = young woman or maiden) and translate it as if the original said "betulah" (virgin).

 

It is possible that the translators of the LXX chose this stronger, more precise Greek word (parthenos) to reflect the very popular Hellenistic belief in virgin born deities and demi-gods of their time. While I am not standing on this last statement as fact, it is something to further research and consider.

Which actually would suggest the translators already had the Greek beliefs in mind. It shows Greek culture and belief already were setting ideas into place which were not "Pure Moses/Judaism."

 

It then becomes pretty apparent that the New Testament writer of Matthew used the Greek understanding for attributing the Isaiah "prophecy" to Jesus. It seems that prior to the Matthew account the idea of a virgin birth was not necessarily attributed to Jesus. However, it may be possible because of the many other "virgin born deities and demi-gods" that the author of Matthew thought making Jesus "virgin born" would lend some credibility to the credentials of Jesus. I know I have sort of laid this on the author of Matthew's shoulders and that may not be the case. It could be that, by the time Matthew was being written, the concept of the "virgin born savior" was already circulating. The point is that many belief systems before, during and after had a virgin born savior, god or demi-god and it seems that Jesus was added into the mix.

Exactly, which is part of my argument. Greek culture and though (philosophy, and religion) were influencing the expression of the Jesus stories, meaning, they would obviously spin the stories (and add) to make Jesus more Greek than Jewish. And it is very possible the "morals" like the Golden rule and other things came from that camp rather than Jesus being some kind of "gods messenger revealing divine morality."

[mwc]

Just a fun fact. You are correct that there was a huge Hellenistic influence, but I would postulate that it was the dominance. That there were more Greek than Jewish persons in the region. The reasoning behind this is that in the south side of Jerusalem, which would have been the most heavily populated Jewish area, more than half of the tomb inscriptions are in Greek, not Hebrew.

This is a good point. Which is why I said the question was a hard question to answer. I would stick by my answer that Hebrew was the first language in religious texts during the 1C BCE/CE (I can't think of any Greek texts among the DSS for instance but that could just be my faulty memory). Greek was the universal language but does that mean that the people were also affected by the Hellenistic culture and to what degree?

 

The question I think becomes what do we consider Hellenistic and what did they consider Hellenistic? Kind of like how rock and roll music used to be considered "black" culture and now I don't know if anyone thinks of it that way. At one point the people may have looked at things and say "Greek" but it became commonplace enough and they didn't notice it anymore. That was just how things were. Without more specifics these are difficult questions to address.

 

mwc

[Abiyoyo]

I believe you are referring to the Isaiah 7:14 passage:

 

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

 

The Hebrew word for "virgin" used in the Old Testament is "almah" which simply means "young woman" or "maiden." While "almah" could refer to a virgin, it does not have to at all. The Hebrew Old Testament has a clear word that does mean "virgin" and it is "betulah." If the author of Isaiah wanted to ensure that everyone knew he was speaking of a "virgin" he could have used the more exact word, "betulah" and not the more fluid word, "almah."

 

I thought that meant concealed, private, in the feminine? Why didn't they use this to imply a young woman?

 

na` arah (nah-ar-aw');

 

a girl (from infancy to adolescence):

[Ouroboros]

I thought that meant concealed, private, in the feminine? Why didn't they use this to imply a young woman?

 

na` arah (nah-ar-aw');

 

a girl (from infancy to adolescence):

"To adolescence"? You mean they should have used the term a pre-puberty-child-girl instead of a woman-who-can-conceive? That wouldn't make sense. I'm sure they had words for "baby" or "newborn" too, but it's obvious why they wouldn't pick those, isn't it?

[Abiyoyo]

I thought that meant concealed, private, in the feminine? Why didn't they use this to imply a young woman?

 

na` arah (nah-ar-aw');

 

a girl (from infancy to adolescence):

"To adolescence"? You mean they should have used the term a pre-puberty-child-girl instead of a woman-who-can-conceive? That wouldn't make sense. I'm sure they had words for "baby" or "newborn" too, but it's obvious why they wouldn't pick those, isn't it?

 

But still, how does young woman translate concealed, private, veiled? Did I miss something? I didn't think almah meant young woman.

 

`almah (al-maw');

 

; a lass (as veiled or private):

[MathGeek]

From what I've read and seen here, it still appears to me that Greek culture, ideas and philosophy had great impact upon Christianity and even Judaism. For me, I am convinced that Christianity is at least heavily indebted to at least Greek philosophy for taking ideas away and making them their own. Even in the scientific arena, the medieval church proclaimed that Man was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around the Earth. This worldview is based on the perfectly circular Ptolemaic model of the universe. So by my logic, if atheistic morality is considered parasitic because it borrows somewhat from the Christian worldview, then the Christian worldview is parasitic for borrowing ideas from Greek sources.

 

The evidence is very clear in that regard.

 

To be honest as well, how many Jews (scholars and laymen alike) think that Christianity has stolen much of their worldview. How many Jews wonder if Ken Ham and all of the other creationist pushers have stolen their unique creation story to use for their own means?

 

Some have gone far enough to say that Christianity is a plagarism of pagan religions too.

 

If any of the above assertions have any veracity, then Christianity is guilty of doing with other idea what atheiskeptihumanists do "supposedly" with morality.

[Ouroboros]

But still, how does young woman translate concealed, private, veiled? Did I miss something? I didn't think almah meant young woman.

 

`almah (al-maw');

 

; a lass (as veiled or private):

 

This is what I found in Wiki:

Almah ("עלמה") or plural: alamot ("עלמות") is a Hebrew feminine noun, for a girl who has reached puberty but is still under the shielding protection of her family; she is a young, marriageable (i.e. unmarried) girl. In Bibles, almah is typically translated as virgin, maiden, young woman, damsel or girl. For theological reasons, the meaning and definition of this word (especially the definition of "virgin") can be controversial, particularly when applied to Isaiah 7:14.

Maybe that clarifies it a bit?

 

I think the argument about Isaiah's use of the words is this: Imagine I write a prophetic text, inspired by God, and in the passage God tells me I have to put a reference to future, and very important event, where a "virgin" is about to conceive a child. And of course, I didn't have my coffee that morning, so instead of using the English word "virgin", I decide to use the word "young woman." Now, how does anyone in the future know beyond any doubt that I disobeyed God and wrote the prophesy wrong and it was supposed to mean the other, less common, understanding of the word?

[Looking4Answers]

Despite the Wikipedia entry, ancient Hebrew documents (those outside the Bible) use the term "almah" to refer to a young woman or maiden. The Old Testament uses it this way as well. There is a term for child and it is "yeled" for a boy child and "yeldah" for a girl child. Na'ar (m) and na'arah (f) is another term for a child, but it tends to be very broad. By the way, these terms are all still used today in modern Hebrew as spoken in Israel. I lived there. I am not fluent, but I do speak some of the language. While languages evolved (and modern Hebrew certainly did!) Ben Yehudah, who brought Hebrew into the realm of a modern language, based most of his work on biblical Hebrew. As a result, many terms are used in the same or similar way today as in the Bible. Thus, a "betulah" is a virgin (even today) and an "almah" is a young woman. A "yeldah" is a female child. A "na'arah" would be a more generic term to cover a child of of a more nondescript age. Take this Bible verse as an example:

 

Proverbs 22:6 - Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

 

The word "child" there is the Hebrew word "na'ar." Because the verse is dealing with training a child at any age the more nondescript word for child is used instead of a word for infant or the word "yeled." The concept described here seems to speak of training a child through ALL AGES of his childhood from infant to becoming a young adult.

 

If the author of Isaiah had intended to let his readers know the promise was of a "virgin birth" then the word "betulah" would most definitely have been used. The end result is that Isaiah 7:14 CANNOT be about a virgin, no matter what the writer of Matthew says about it.

[mwc]

The problem is you're arguing Hebrew when you should be arguing Greek. The word is "parthenos" in both places (the NT and LXX OT). It means virgin (essentially in the sense of the wiki quote...close enough). Whoever translated Isaiah in the LXX turned this girl into a virgin.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

MWC,

 

That's very true. The one to blame for the screw-up was the translator guy of Septuagint. But it does show that "revelation" from God and the Holy Spirit can't fix translation errors, but let it go on and even become dogma and theology. God must have been sleeping while Jesus was born, preaching, and died. Lot of attention God the omniscient gave to details.

[chefranden]

... And of course, I didn't have my coffee that morning...

 

Ya, I know what you mean. One time I emptied the dishwasher and put the dishes away before I had my coffee. Turns out the dishes were still dirty. My wife was gracious saying that it was the thought that counted.

[Ouroboros]

Ya, I know what you mean. One time I emptied the dishwasher and put the dishes away before I had my coffee. Turns out the dishes were still dirty. My wife was gracious saying that it was the thought that counted.

Haha! That's like me.

 

During schooldays, in the morning we make waffles. One morning I was so sleepy I almost started to pour waffle mix into my coffee-cup.

[Looking4Answers]

The problem is you're arguing Hebrew when you should be arguing Greek. The word is "parthenos" in both places (the NT and LXX OT). It means virgin (essentially in the sense of the wiki quote...close enough). Whoever translated Isaiah in the LXX turned this girl into a virgin.

 

I covered that in my earlier post and gave an example of how it might have gone from the Hebrew (almah = young woman) to the Greek (parthenos = virgin):

 

When the Old Testament was finally translated in the Greek (called the Septuagint) the translators chose to use a form of the Greek word "parthenos." This is the Greek word for "virgin." So the translators of the LXX (70 or Septuagint) decided to go against the very well understood original Hebrew word's meaning (almah = young woman or maiden) and translate it as if the original said "betulah" (virgin).

 

It is possible that the translators of the LXX chose this stronger, more precise Greek word (parthenos) to reflect the very popular Hellenistic belief in virgin born deities and demi-gods of their time. While I am not standing on this last statement as fact, it is something to further research and consider.

 

It then becomes pretty apparent that the New Testament writer of Matthew used the Greek understanding for attributing the Isaiah "prophecy" to Jesus. It seems that prior to the Matthew account the idea of a virgin birth was not necessarily attributed to Jesus. However, it may be possible because of the many other "virgin born deities and demi-gods" that the author of Matthew thought making Jesus "virgin born" would lend some credibility to the credentials of Jesus. I know I have sort of laid this on the author of Matthew's shoulders and that may not be the case. It could be that, by the time Matthew was being written, the concept of the "virgin born savior" was already circulating. The point is that many belief systems before, during and after had a virgin born savior, god or demi-god and it seems that Jesus was added into the mix.

[mwc]

I covered that in my earlier post and gave an example of how it might have gone from the Hebrew (almah = young woman) to the Greek (parthenos = virgin):

So you did. I guess I missed it. Oops.

 

I've also wondered if this story did happen to have a different origin at some point where "jesus" had an earthly dad if the story may have been altered as a result of the LXX? So you have Mary and Joseph get together and birth "jesus" and he's a "prophet." Later someone reads the LXX and "discovers" that their special guy is supposed to be born of a virgin so edits occur to make that happen.

 

Now, in Greek literature you have demi-gods getting "made" when a human would have sex with a god while pregnant (since they didn't understand biology properly they saw the seed of humans and the seed of gods intermingling in the womb to create a part-man/part-god hybrid). So the the "spirit" knocked up Mary (assuming she's already preggers) this creates the hybrid "jesus" (fully comprehendable to Greeks). Later, just make her not preggers and this makes her a virgin and gives the story we have today.

 

mwc